Bestseller lists aren’t what they pretend to be. In other, more blunt, words: bestseller lists are fake.
A few weeks ago I looked at what provides the best reading experience for us readers. Its characters we grow to love (or hate).
Today I want to look at how we readers are duped into thinking a book is a bestseller. And therefore worthy to be read.
I’m going to focus on The New York Times bestseller list because it’s the 800 pound gorilla on the block and has been since the 1930s when it began.
In 1983 William Blatty, the author of The Exorcist, took The New York Times Company to court claiming that the newspaper was intentionally excluding his book, Legion, from the bestseller list for editorial reasons. By looking at sales alone, it should have been on the list.
The New York Times won the case. Their defense in part was that the bestseller list was not supposed to be accurate, but merely reflected their opinion.
Here it is from the court ruling:
“Defendant further argues that inasmuch as the list was compiled in the exercise of its editorial judgment and represented its opinion of which books were best sellers, the First Amendment shields defendant from liability for interference with plaintiff's prospective advantage by refusing to include his book in the list.” (Blatty v. New York Times Company, Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California. Emphasis mine.)
For decades, The New York Times presented the illusion that the bestseller list was in fact a list based on actual sales of books. And virtually all of us were duped into thinking that illusion was reality. In fact, the list is merely a compilation of sales based on a survey of specially selected sales outlets, heavily edited by The New York Times staff.
In other words, the list is a sham. It’s fake news, as it were. The list It is in reality merely the opinion of The New York Times staff as to what books should be bestsellers. It’s an op ed piece telling you what they think you should be reading.
So what does this mean for us readers? I think it means we can safely ignore bestseller lists. Because the books on them are not true bestsellers. They are not a true measure of what people are actually buying and reading.
We associate social proof with quality and acceptance. Author Mark Dawson makes this point all the time to authors when it comes to Facebook advertising. The more 5 star reviews an author has the better. This is part of our herd instinct. We are, after all, social creatures. There is a tendency within us to not go contrary to the group think. The Times knows this and exploits it in their bestseller list to get you to read what they think is best for you. In a way, this is a type of fake news.
The other lists, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, and USA Today operate in similar fashion.
Even Amazon plays this game by creating micro-categories for books, so that authors can get a “bestseller” tag — which generates more sales for the Zon. One author noted that his book on Washington, DC didn’t sell until he took advantage of Amazon’s Washington, DC micro-category. Suddenly it became a “bestseller”.
What this all means is that the term “bestseller”, when it comes to books, essentially has no meaning. It’s valueless.
Reading, as with all things in life, is a personal experience. What moves me, may very well not move you at all. I’ve laughed my head off at a passage in a book, while my wife doesn’t think it is at all funny.
Commercial fiction has proven that most people do in fact ignore bestseller lists. Starting back around World War I, the pulp writers ignored the academics and literati. They wrote what the average guy or gal wanted to read.
Edgar Rice Burroughs never made the New York Times bestseller list and I don’t think he cared. He got rich off Tarzan. Lester Dent made a decent living writing crime and suspense novels and most of the Doc Savage books. Murray Leinster wrote thousands of stories and made a nice living at it. The same goes for Seabury Quinn, Robert E Howard, and many others.
And this continues today with many indie authors making a very nice living without the help of The New York Times or USA Today. And that means most books which are enjoyed are not bestsellers. By extension that means that most books worth reading, aren’t on the bestseller lists.
William Shakespeare, who predates all these lists, wrote with one thing in mind: give the theater goers a play worth their money, and they’ll be back for more. It was the public Bill wrote for and he made a nice living doing so. In effect, he was a pulp writer.
We readers, I think, can safely ignore the claims made by authors of bestseller stardom. Because such a claim is no guarantee their books are actual bestsellers, or that they are any good. I know that has been my experience more often than not.
I’ve noted before in this blog, there are many gems that have never gotten into the top million on Amazon’s paid Kindle list. Those books are very much worth reading. Often they are far more creative and entertaining than those much higher up on the list.
Jacques Barzun, in his preface to The Selected Letters of Lord Byron, wrote: A letter is in fact the only device for combining solitude and good company.
I think the same applies to books. Leave the fake bestseller lists (and their fake social approval) behind. Be thyself.
Here are 4 articles that go into more detail regarding the bestseller list sham:
Tim Grahl tells us the truth on bestseller lists:
Ken Kurson gives us a look at political bias in the NYT bestseller list:
Tucker Max on bestseller list bias:
Noah Kagan on how writers can hit #1 on Amazon’s bestseller list:
Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy non-bestseller reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment